The Shrine

http://kcal9.com/localnews/localnewsla_ ... 92225.html

I decided to start trying to keep up with local news, and I have no rabbit ears or TV cable and not much desire to get either. Thus, the internet.

If any of you thought you had read stories about reprehensible human beings before now, you might want to think again...it's an article about how a 19-month-old child was killed in a police shootout due to the fact that her father decided to use her as a human shield.

This is worse than a bomb blowing up in London killing 50(?) because a baby died?

Hey, at least it wasn't a 15-16 year old kid. A 19-month-old isn't that much investment, in comparison.

SineSwiper wrote:Hey, at least it wasn't a 15-16 year old kid. A 19-month-old isn't that much investment, in comparison.

I saw this article being discussed and I got the feeling it'd have been no problem if the hostage was a 15-16 year old kid who died instead.

It's a problem with fucking child worship. Because the baby is cute, the tale is more tragic. In the words of Denis Leary, "I'm an otter. I do cute little hand things. You're free to go. I'm a cow. ...Get in the fucking truck! But, I'm a cow! You're a baseball glove!"

I have more of a problem with the fact that it was a father who used his *own child* as a shield. That goes against every natural instinct that we, and every other animal on this plant for that matter, have.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single animal that would abandon its children in a time of danger - or even worse, sacrifice its children to save itself.

Agent 57 wrote:Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single animal that would abandon its children in a time of danger - or even worse, sacrifice its children to save itself.

There are animals that eat their young, so I don't think that argument would have much weight.

SineSwiper wrote:There are animals that eat their young

Their own young? Really?

Hm. In the immortal words of Wayne Campbell, "I was not aware of that."

I'd assume a species that eats own young doesn't do it very often unless they've too many children in the first place, because otherwise the said species won't be around for very long.

I think Sine is talking about preying mantises. It wouldn't surprise me to find that there are others, though.

As far as responding to you two on an emotional level, I don't know if I have the energy...

Praying mantises (mantii?) are the ones that eat their *mates* - I'm reasonably sure they don't eat their young.

And the problem that you're having in this thread with Sine, Don, and my responses is that the baby ended up further in your Monkeysphere than in any of ours - either because of the fact that this story happened in your local area, or because you have more of a sympathetic response when a child dies as to when somebody else dies.

What I mean is, take a moment to look at things from an objective viewpoint for a moment. The title of your post was "Possibly the worst story I've ever heard" and it's about *two* people dying. That's it. And yet, as Don pointed out, that's worse than 50 people dying in subway bombings in London? Than 119 people dying in subway bombings in Madrid? Than thousands of people dying in 9/11? Than I-don't-even-know-how-many dying in civil war bloodbaths in Africa?

A death is a death, and they're all bad. However, no one death is, objectively, any worse than any other one - except possibly in a case of a person, who, by living their life, provided direct survival benefits to others - the only thing that can make any one death any "worse" is one person's subjective reaction. It simply happens in this case that you're having a stronger subjective reaction to this death than we are.

Personally, I don't have as much of a visceral reaction to children dying - especially very young children - simply because of the fact that I don't look at every child as a paragon of virtue and potential for nothing but good. Sure, the kid could have been a doctor or a social worker and spent all their spare time volunteering at the old folks' home - but they could have just as easily been a violent bigot or a serial killer or somebody who got AIDS and then slept with 50 people without using protection. (If you haven't already figured it out, I'm pro-choice.)

Don Wang wrote:I'd assume a species that eats own young doesn't do it very often unless they've too many children in the first place, because otherwise the said species won't be around for very long.

I think some large mammals do it in cases where their offspring is too weak to survive.

Well, I mostly agree with you on that, Agent, but still, in terms of "completely defenseless person loses chance to live the rest of his/her life", I think this one tops the scale as far as violating that ethic, if one wants to make it an ethic that one follows. (Not trying to say that's something everyone should necessarily do.)

As regards "worst story I've ever heard", I didn't really mean that literally. Should have posted under a different title. If I'm being literal, I have heard lots of "worse" stories.

I just think that in terms of our societal values of reprehensibility, this guy isn't likely to win any posthumuous awards for decency...besides which (and this may make me a "horrible person" by those same societal values ), it doesn't seem like the kid served too well in the human shield capacity.

My friend and I were talking about this via IM (I'm nevyn917)...

The IM log wrote:[09:53] nevyn917: i wonder what kind of thinking process says to someone...
[09:53] nevyn917: "you're pinned down under heavy fire"
[09:53] nevyn917: "you need something to defend yourself with"
[09:54] nevyn917: "do you use: a. toolbox"
[09:54] nevyn917: "or b. daughter"
[09:54] daveweaver2004: well, consider that this same thought process got them pinned down under heavy fire in the first place.
[09:55] nevyn917: hahahahha
[09:55] nevyn917: good point

Mental wrote:I just think that in terms of our societal values of reprehensibility, this guy isn't likely to win any posthumuous awards for decency.

Hey man, I agree with you there - I said basically the same thing in my first post in this thread.

The IM log wrote:[09:53] nevyn917: i wonder what kind of thinking process says to someone...
[09:53] nevyn917: "you're pinned down under heavy fire"
[09:53] nevyn917: "you need something to defend yourself with"
[09:54] nevyn917: "do you use: a. toolbox"
[09:54] nevyn917: "or b. daughter"
[09:54] daveweaver2004: well, consider that this same thought process got them pinned down under heavy fire in the first place.
[09:55] nevyn917: hahahahha
[09:55] nevyn917: good point

And this may make *me* a "horrible person", but if your dad is the kind of person to get pinned down under heavy fire by the police...well, your life probably wasn't going to be all that great anyway. *shrug*

Well, you never know. But I'd *probably* agree that her chances of having decent opportunities were not great, at least early in life.

But I'm not going to do anything about it, at least not right now. She's dead, he's dead, and my energy is going into game development right now, not civic activism.

I thought hamsters and/or gerbils (can't remember which) ate their young sometimes too.

And it's not like it's a matter of survival. They're goddamn hamsters.

Mental wrote:But I'm not going to do anything about it, at least not right now. She's dead, he's dead, and my energy is going into game development right now, not civic activism.

Probably the best chain of events. People bitch about the "culture of life" and how precious it is, but creating life is really easy. Actually doing something with it is hard, and too many people are concerned with the quantity of life, not the quality of life. Apparently, those animals that eat their young for being too weak ARE being concerned for quality of life. We could learn a lot from that. (Not directly; no point in killing kids because they are too "weak", but at least acknowledge that a death is not always the worse thing to happen.)

Like Agent 57 said, her life probably wasn't going to be all that great anyway.